The peer reviewing boycott policy
Nov. 22nd, 2025 05:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
posicThe editors of various mathematical research journals ask me to do peer reviews for them quite regularly. As general rule, I do quite a few peer reviews, including both quick opinions and full referee reports, per unit of time. This has been the case throughout all the years of my research "career" since early 1990s, with rare exceptions of some unusual periods of my life.
My first math. research paper was published in Fall 1991. I received my first rejection letter from a math. research journal in September 2009, for a paper I submitted in August 2009. What remained for several years the last two acceptance letters I got came in June-July 2011. From September 2011 to February 2014, I received 8 rejection letters in a row (0 acceptance letters). In particular, 5 rejection letters arrived from September 2011 to mid-February 2012.
The following e-mail response to an editor of Advances in Mathematics, which I sent on February 17, 2012, instituted my peer reviewing boycott policy -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/733257.html , see https://posic.dreamwidth.org/734932.html for a discussion in Russian. (Cf. https://posic.dreamwidth.org/656946.html for some quotations from the September 2011 rejection letter I got from Advances in Math.)
Simply put, my refereeing boycott policy consists in:
As a matter of personal policy, I do not do any reviews for journals that would not publish my own work. If a journal has never published a paper of mine, has rejected at least one paper of mine at some point, and has the audacity to request a review from me after that, then I reject such a request for review essentially automatically, and the journal is added to my black list.
Rare exceptions can be made for cases when I perceive the rejection of my paper by the journal in question to be adequately justified and based on solid, good grounds. Of course, I would not hold any grudge if the referee found an actual significant mathematical mistake invalidating the claimed results in a submitted paper of mine, for example. The journal's low acceptance rate or other papers submitted to the journal being perceived by the editors to have higher level than mine does not constitute good grounds.
The generally applicable explanation is that, by rejecting my paper, the journal's editor or editorial board has certified my work to be not up to the journal's high standards. It follows that I am not qualified to do any reviews for the journal in question, and therefore I refrain from doing it. I am not qualified to maintain high standards exceeding my own level.
Here is a (possibly incomplete) list of journals which have found my research to be not up to their very high standards of quality. Since, moreover, these journals somehow still could not refrain from subsequently requesting a referee's report from me, they are on the black list:
Advances in Mathematics
Duke Math. Journal
Journal of the AMS
Crelle's Journal
Documenta Math.
Israel Journal of Math.
Expositiones Math.
Representation Theory (Electronic)
Journal of the EMS
Canadian Journal of Math.
I do not submit to these journals and do not do any reviews for them.
***
Some links to my blog entries exemplifying or discussing this policy are collected below. Let me start with what may be the most important explanation, spelling out my reasons -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/1950317.html . Here is an English translation of this Russian blog entry:
"Why am I demonstratively refusing to review for Journal X, which, in my view, has unfairly rejected my work? Thereby severing all relations with Journal X and condemning myself to the fact that my work will be never published there?
It suffices to imagine what the logical alternative would be. Suppose I agreed to review for Journal X, which had rejected my work. Then I would find it difficult to resist submitting another work of mine to Journal X, which, as far as we can assume, would also be rejected. Thus, I would find myself in the absurd, humiliating position of being exploited by Journal X as a reviewer while being denied recognition as an author.
The absurdity and humiliation of this situation would become a significant source of discomfort for me and incentivize me to push for Journal X to publish me at least once, or better yet, several times. Thus, instead of pursuing my research interests in mathematics according to my own aesthetic preferences, I would gradually find myself competing with the editorial standards of X, whatever they may be. Essentially, this would mean subordinating my relationship with mathematics to the standards of prestigious journals.
Having abandoned this alternative and severed my relationship with X, I can concentrate on writing paper after paper that is clearly unpublishable not only in X, but also in a half-as-prestigious journal X/2 = Y. Yet somehow I am confident that my not-so-publishable papers are far better than a good half of the papers published by prestigious X. This latter fact, however, disqualifies me from reviewing for X -- for what kind of reviewer is he whose standards for research work quality are so fundamentally at odds with those of the editors?
At the same time, I protect myself from the intrusion of alien aesthetics, in the sense of a flood of papers being considered or published in the prestigious Journal X. "Как можно! слог его здесь ставят в образец!", -- as a famous Russian verse of Griboyedov says.
Does this mean that I am driven by hatred for X, a thirst for revenge for my rejected work, for me being denied recognition, etc.? Yes and no. Of course, I wouldn't be upset in the very least if X rejected even more good papers, published even more bad ones, lost its reputation, went bankrupt, closed down and ceased publication, etc. But in reality, I couldn't care less. I simply don't want the existence of prestigious Journal X to interfere with my life as a mathematician, that's all.
This is not to mention that I simply love mathematics and doubt that it really benefits from the existence of prestigious Journal X. The latter problem is not necessarily tied to whether this or that journal has rejected or published this or that work of mine, in the sense of mine personally -- but I need to organize my journal policy in some way, and a retaliatory boycott seems to be the most suitable approach."
***
The point is that peer-reviewed journals making their decisions based on the opinions of the authors' collaborators and competitors are neither capable of nor interested in knowing a good paper from a bad one. Their publishers' motivation is to create impact, i.e., to attract crowds, not to advance knowledge. Their much touted high quality standards are the standards of fashionable mediocrity, not genuine value.
I do not know and I am not interested in knowing what the currently prevailing standards of fashionable mediocrity may consist in. This is another way to explain why I am not qualified to participate. If the journal still wants my opinion, for whatever reason, it is up to them; but I am not obligated to agree. Some people seem to like my referee's reports, but I find preparing them a hard, time-consuming, and thankless task.
The peer-reviewed journals as they presently function are just career vehicles. They do not serve mathematics well and do not do justice to my contribution. I am interested in advancing mathematics rather than the career interests of mathematicians. This makes my interaction with the peer-reviewed journals an uneasy mixture of collaboration and confrontation.
***
Here is a list of links to blog entries containing excerpts from my communications with the journals I am boycotting. First I give links to blog entries containing excerpts from rejection letters and/or the attached referees' reports I have received from those journals. Then I give links to my responses to the requests for review, where I refuse to referee for such journals and formulate my reasons.
Rejection letter received from Advances in Math. -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/656946.html
Rejection letters sent to Advances in Math. -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/733257.html , https://posic.dreamwidth.org/1874319.html , https://posic.dreamwidth.org/2163841.html
Rejection letters received from Duke Math. J. -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/303795.html , https://posic.dreamwidth.org/688872.html
Rejection letters sent to Duke Math. J. -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/1193624.html , https://posic.livejournal.com/2922341.html
Rejection letter received from Journal of the AMS -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/693922.html
Rejection letter sent to Journal of the AMS -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/2737377.html
Rejection letter received from Crelle's Journal -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/726202.html , see also https://posic.dreamwidth.org/737999.html
Rejection letter sent to Crelle's Journal -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/2838993.html
Rejection letter received from Documenta Math. -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/729156.html
Rejection letter sent to Documenta Math. -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/1216897.html and https://posic.dreamwidth.org/1217443.html
Rejection letter received from Israel Journal of Math. (this blog entry is friend-only because of some conversation in the comments) -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/799690.html
Rejection letters sent to Israel Journ. of Math. -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/1229661.html , https://posic.dreamwidth.org/2203159.html
Rejection letter received from Expositiones Math. -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/1201278.html
Rejection letter sent to Expositiones Math. -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/2379207.html
Rejection letter received from Representation Theory (Electronic) -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/1502721.html
Rejection letters sent to Representation Theory (Electronic) -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/1909327.html , https://posic.livejournal.com/2329240.html
Rejection letter received from Journal of the EMS -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/1799981.html
(My inability to do a requested review for JEMS, on the peer reviewing boycott grounds, was communicated to the editor privately.)
Rejection letter received from Canadian Journal of Math. -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/2066113.html
Rejection letter sent to Canadian Journal of Math. -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/2336153.html
My first math. research paper was published in Fall 1991. I received my first rejection letter from a math. research journal in September 2009, for a paper I submitted in August 2009. What remained for several years the last two acceptance letters I got came in June-July 2011. From September 2011 to February 2014, I received 8 rejection letters in a row (0 acceptance letters). In particular, 5 rejection letters arrived from September 2011 to mid-February 2012.
The following e-mail response to an editor of Advances in Mathematics, which I sent on February 17, 2012, instituted my peer reviewing boycott policy -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/733257.html , see https://posic.dreamwidth.org/734932.html for a discussion in Russian. (Cf. https://posic.dreamwidth.org/656946.html for some quotations from the September 2011 rejection letter I got from Advances in Math.)
Simply put, my refereeing boycott policy consists in:
As a matter of personal policy, I do not do any reviews for journals that would not publish my own work. If a journal has never published a paper of mine, has rejected at least one paper of mine at some point, and has the audacity to request a review from me after that, then I reject such a request for review essentially automatically, and the journal is added to my black list.
Rare exceptions can be made for cases when I perceive the rejection of my paper by the journal in question to be adequately justified and based on solid, good grounds. Of course, I would not hold any grudge if the referee found an actual significant mathematical mistake invalidating the claimed results in a submitted paper of mine, for example. The journal's low acceptance rate or other papers submitted to the journal being perceived by the editors to have higher level than mine does not constitute good grounds.
The generally applicable explanation is that, by rejecting my paper, the journal's editor or editorial board has certified my work to be not up to the journal's high standards. It follows that I am not qualified to do any reviews for the journal in question, and therefore I refrain from doing it. I am not qualified to maintain high standards exceeding my own level.
Here is a (possibly incomplete) list of journals which have found my research to be not up to their very high standards of quality. Since, moreover, these journals somehow still could not refrain from subsequently requesting a referee's report from me, they are on the black list:
Advances in Mathematics
Duke Math. Journal
Journal of the AMS
Crelle's Journal
Documenta Math.
Israel Journal of Math.
Expositiones Math.
Representation Theory (Electronic)
Journal of the EMS
Canadian Journal of Math.
I do not submit to these journals and do not do any reviews for them.
***
Some links to my blog entries exemplifying or discussing this policy are collected below. Let me start with what may be the most important explanation, spelling out my reasons -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/1950317.html . Here is an English translation of this Russian blog entry:
"Why am I demonstratively refusing to review for Journal X, which, in my view, has unfairly rejected my work? Thereby severing all relations with Journal X and condemning myself to the fact that my work will be never published there?
It suffices to imagine what the logical alternative would be. Suppose I agreed to review for Journal X, which had rejected my work. Then I would find it difficult to resist submitting another work of mine to Journal X, which, as far as we can assume, would also be rejected. Thus, I would find myself in the absurd, humiliating position of being exploited by Journal X as a reviewer while being denied recognition as an author.
The absurdity and humiliation of this situation would become a significant source of discomfort for me and incentivize me to push for Journal X to publish me at least once, or better yet, several times. Thus, instead of pursuing my research interests in mathematics according to my own aesthetic preferences, I would gradually find myself competing with the editorial standards of X, whatever they may be. Essentially, this would mean subordinating my relationship with mathematics to the standards of prestigious journals.
Having abandoned this alternative and severed my relationship with X, I can concentrate on writing paper after paper that is clearly unpublishable not only in X, but also in a half-as-prestigious journal X/2 = Y. Yet somehow I am confident that my not-so-publishable papers are far better than a good half of the papers published by prestigious X. This latter fact, however, disqualifies me from reviewing for X -- for what kind of reviewer is he whose standards for research work quality are so fundamentally at odds with those of the editors?
At the same time, I protect myself from the intrusion of alien aesthetics, in the sense of a flood of papers being considered or published in the prestigious Journal X. "Как можно! слог его здесь ставят в образец!", -- as a famous Russian verse of Griboyedov says.
Does this mean that I am driven by hatred for X, a thirst for revenge for my rejected work, for me being denied recognition, etc.? Yes and no. Of course, I wouldn't be upset in the very least if X rejected even more good papers, published even more bad ones, lost its reputation, went bankrupt, closed down and ceased publication, etc. But in reality, I couldn't care less. I simply don't want the existence of prestigious Journal X to interfere with my life as a mathematician, that's all.
This is not to mention that I simply love mathematics and doubt that it really benefits from the existence of prestigious Journal X. The latter problem is not necessarily tied to whether this or that journal has rejected or published this or that work of mine, in the sense of mine personally -- but I need to organize my journal policy in some way, and a retaliatory boycott seems to be the most suitable approach."
***
The point is that peer-reviewed journals making their decisions based on the opinions of the authors' collaborators and competitors are neither capable of nor interested in knowing a good paper from a bad one. Their publishers' motivation is to create impact, i.e., to attract crowds, not to advance knowledge. Their much touted high quality standards are the standards of fashionable mediocrity, not genuine value.
I do not know and I am not interested in knowing what the currently prevailing standards of fashionable mediocrity may consist in. This is another way to explain why I am not qualified to participate. If the journal still wants my opinion, for whatever reason, it is up to them; but I am not obligated to agree. Some people seem to like my referee's reports, but I find preparing them a hard, time-consuming, and thankless task.
The peer-reviewed journals as they presently function are just career vehicles. They do not serve mathematics well and do not do justice to my contribution. I am interested in advancing mathematics rather than the career interests of mathematicians. This makes my interaction with the peer-reviewed journals an uneasy mixture of collaboration and confrontation.
***
Here is a list of links to blog entries containing excerpts from my communications with the journals I am boycotting. First I give links to blog entries containing excerpts from rejection letters and/or the attached referees' reports I have received from those journals. Then I give links to my responses to the requests for review, where I refuse to referee for such journals and formulate my reasons.
Rejection letter received from Advances in Math. -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/656946.html
Rejection letters sent to Advances in Math. -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/733257.html , https://posic.dreamwidth.org/1874319.html , https://posic.dreamwidth.org/2163841.html
Rejection letters received from Duke Math. J. -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/303795.html , https://posic.dreamwidth.org/688872.html
Rejection letters sent to Duke Math. J. -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/1193624.html , https://posic.livejournal.com/2922341.html
Rejection letter received from Journal of the AMS -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/693922.html
Rejection letter sent to Journal of the AMS -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/2737377.html
Rejection letter received from Crelle's Journal -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/726202.html , see also https://posic.dreamwidth.org/737999.html
Rejection letter sent to Crelle's Journal -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/2838993.html
Rejection letter received from Documenta Math. -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/729156.html
Rejection letter sent to Documenta Math. -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/1216897.html and https://posic.dreamwidth.org/1217443.html
Rejection letter received from Israel Journal of Math. (this blog entry is friend-only because of some conversation in the comments) -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/799690.html
Rejection letters sent to Israel Journ. of Math. -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/1229661.html , https://posic.dreamwidth.org/2203159.html
Rejection letter received from Expositiones Math. -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/1201278.html
Rejection letter sent to Expositiones Math. -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/2379207.html
Rejection letter received from Representation Theory (Electronic) -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/1502721.html
Rejection letters sent to Representation Theory (Electronic) -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/1909327.html , https://posic.livejournal.com/2329240.html
Rejection letter received from Journal of the EMS -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/1799981.html
(My inability to do a requested review for JEMS, on the peer reviewing boycott grounds, was communicated to the editor privately.)
Rejection letter received from Canadian Journal of Math. -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/2066113.html
Rejection letter sent to Canadian Journal of Math. -- https://posic.dreamwidth.org/2336153.html
